• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Abortion/Contraceptive Overpopulationists

From your link:


Here again, this proves my point.

We only have a population problem if technological advancement halts.

We can have more people provided we improve our technology. Given that technological innovation is inevitable, "population management" is not only unecessary, it is unethical.

Why is technology falling behind, and pollution and CO2 advancing, if Techonolgy is the whole Answer?

There are no ethical possibilities for better population management? What ethics are you citing?
 
Why is technology falling behind, and pollution and CO2 advancing, if Techonolgy is the whole Answer?

I think this is an aria where you and I may agree more than disagree.

From liquid coal plants turned down by local legislature for political PETA reasons and 100MpG carburetor patents bought out by big bro and shelved, never to be used, to the 80MpG car in France Ford refuses to import to the US due to Diesel tariffs...we need to unlock technological advances.

There are no ethical possibilities for better population management? What ethics are you citing?

The Social Moral of the People of the US, like being secure in your own person, to keep private what you choose to keep private, and similar.

I’m still unclear of what you mean by “population management”, but perhaps that concept has a place in city planning and zoning, or in testing students in the 8th grade to determine rather they go on to finishing school or into a trade school.
 
Last edited:
This is all well and good until you pretend to be pro-choice. At that point your argument becomes contradictory. Since you support forced abortion, Laila, you are necessarily against choice.

Im Pro Choice but i don't agree with forced abortion and if it occured in that context then fair enough
 
Im Pro Choice but i don't agree with forced abortion and if it occured in that context then fair enough

All I ask is that you know what you’re talking about before coming to an opinion so that when you come to DP and beat my ass you'll make it sting :2wave:
 
There is also the social cost that is caused by a lack of congtraceptives and family planning services.

Many tax payers would like to save Tax money by spending less on contraceptives for the poor. This is penny wise and pound foolish. The social cost of unplanned and unwanted chldren is hidden in local budgets.

If a couple is not prepared to raise and support a learning disabled child, the couple could be using family planning and saving, the society the expenses of social services and jails/prisons for unplanned offspring.

Ever priced an MAP? $50.00.

Contraceptives for the poor or financially disadvantaged is a good investment. Anti-Choice overpopulationists deny the actual cost of children.

The cost of sending a child to college can be $100,000.00 The cost of getting special training for learning-diabled chldren can be similar.

The cost to the environment in additional pollution, including Mercury from coal into the oceans, and poisons into the ground water, is largely irreversible.

Providing contraceptives to the poor gives a thousand fold return.

Many Republicans oppose public funding for family planning because many Business men feel that more poor people gives more workers at cheaper labor. The social cost of depriving the poor of family planning is not calculated. Businesses don't pay the taxes to take care of the Lerning and Emotionally disabled that result from out-of-reach family planning options.


Social and emotional costs of learning disabilities.(PREVENTION IN ACTION) - Clinical Psychiatry News | Encyclopedia.com

Social and emotional costs of learning disabilities | Clinical Psychiatry News | Find Articles at BNET


How much does Autism cost your conntry? UK spends 28 Billion Pounds, 2007.


19 November 2007: New figures show autism costs the uk £28 billion a year from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilti

BBC News | HEALTH | Learning disabled 'misplaced and forgotten'

How much of the cost of Jails/Prisons in the US could be saved if better family planning was available to the poor?

The US accounting sysem does not logically connect the Lines in the budgets.

Funding for Education of the learning diabled is found burried in local school system budgets.

Breaking News Thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/42933-pelosi-says-birth-control-will-help-economy.html


..
 
Ever priced an MAP? $50.00.

It's preposterous. There's absolutely no reason for it to cost that much, considering what it is, and it's completely out of reach for the underprivileged.
At that price, it's worth the gamble just to wait and see if you'll need an abortion. Although abortion costs ten times as much as MAP and may put one out of work for a couple of days, maybe you won't need it.
For the poor, it's not really a choice. They simply don't have fifty dollars on hand in case a condom breaks.
They may or may not be able to raise 500 within eight or ten weeks.

Of course better access to contraception would improve the economy in the long run, and improve the quality of people's lives.
 
There is also the social cost that is caused by a lack of congtraceptives and family planning services.

Many tax payers would like to save Tax money by spending less on contraceptives for the poor. This is penny wise and pound foolish. The social cost of unplanned and unwanted chldren is hidden in local budgets.

If a couple is not prepared to raise and support a learning disabled child, the couple could be using family planning and saving, the society the expenses of social services and jails/prisons for unplanned offspring.

Ever priced an MAP? $50.00.

Contraceptives for the poor or financially disadvantaged is a good investment. Anti-Choice overpopulationists deny the actual cost of children.

The cost of sending a child to college can be $100,000.00 The cost of getting special training for learning-diabled chldren can be similar.

The cost to the environment in additional pollution, including Mercury from coal into the oceans, and poisons into the ground water, is largely irreversible.

Providing contraceptives to the poor gives a thousand fold return.

Many Republicans oppose public funding for family planning because many Business men feel that more poor people gives more workers at cheaper labor. The social cost of depriving the poor of family planning is not calculated. Businesses don't pay the taxes to take care of the Lerning and Emotionally disabled that result from out-of-reach family planning options.


Social and emotional costs of learning disabilities.(PREVENTION IN ACTION) - Clinical Psychiatry News | Encyclopedia.com

Social and emotional costs of learning disabilities | Clinical Psychiatry News | Find Articles at BNET


How much does Autism cost your conntry? UK spends 28 Billion Pounds, 2007.


19 November 2007: New figures show autism costs the uk £28 billion a year from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilti

BBC News | HEALTH | Learning disabled 'misplaced and forgotten'

How much of the cost of Jails/Prisons in the US could be saved if better family planning was available to the poor?

The US accounting sysem does not logically connect the Lines in the budgets.

Funding for Education of the learning diabled is found burried in local school system budgets.

Breaking News Thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/42933-pelosi-says-birth-control-will-help-economy.html


..

Please link to the group(s) who self-identify as "Anti-Choice overpopulationists" or retract your hyperbole so that an informed, intelligent conversation may ensue.
 
It's preposterous. There's absolutely no reason for it to cost that much, considering what it is, and it's completely out of reach for the underprivileged.
At that price, it's worth the gamble just to wait and see if you'll need an abortion. Although abortion costs ten times as much as MAP and may put one out of work for a couple of days, maybe you won't need it.
For the poor, it's not really a choice. They simply don't have fifty dollars on hand in case a condom breaks.
They may or may not be able to raise 500 within eight or ten weeks.

Of course better access to contraception would improve the economy in the long run, and improve the quality of people's lives.

If the problem is that they're poor, then it follows that the solution is to increase their income. MAP doesn't do that. MAP only allows them to remain poor and end up needing MAP again...which is of course is good business for big corporations.

IMO buffing up education assistance and career re-training programs is the way to handle this issue.
 
Please link to the group(s) who self-identify as "Anti-Choice overpopulationists" or retract your hyperbole so that an informed, intelligent conversation may ensue.


The population is increasing. Where is the hyperbole?

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How much Tax money is spent for preventable Learning Disabilities, and for children who are unplanned? How much is spent by the Fed for SSI and each state? Hidden costs? Local governments for Learning Disabled homes?

http://www.empowermentzone.com/ss_child.txt




..
 
Last edited:
The population is increasing. Where is the hyperbole?

No one is contesting that the population increasing and you’re not answering the question.

Contraceptives for the poor or financially disadvantaged is a good investment. Anti-Choice overpopulationists deny the actual cost of children.

Exactly who self identifies as "Anti-Choice overpopulationists".

Who are you talking about?

How much Tax money is spent for preventable Learning Disabilities, and for children who are unplanned? How much is spent by the Fed for SSI and each state? Hidden costs? Local governments for Learning Disabled homes?

I'm waiting for you to clarify your argument before answering your questions.
I want to research the specific group you're referring to here. For all I know they're a bunch of extremists, or they could be satirists, I have no idea.

Exactly who self identifies as "Anti-Choice overpopulationists". Please link to them.
 
No one is contesting that the population increasing and you’re not answering the question.



Exactly who self identifies as "Anti-Choice overpopulationists".

Who are you talking about?



I'm waiting for you to clarify your argument before answering your questions.
I want to research the specific group you're referring to here. For all I know they're a bunch of extremists, or they could be satirists, I have no idea.

Exactly who self identifies as "Anti-Choice overpopulationists". Please link to them.


If there are no Overpopulationists, how is the populaltion increasing? Maybe many of the actual Overpopulationists don't think of themselves as overpopulationists. Maybe one value of this thread is to get overpopulationists to realize their own identity.

..
 
It's preposterous. There's absolutely no reason for it to cost that much, considering what it is, and it's completely out of reach for the underprivileged.
At that price, it's worth the gamble just to wait and see if you'll need an abortion. Although abortion costs ten times as much as MAP and may put one out of work for a couple of days, maybe you won't need it.
For the poor, it's not really a choice. They simply don't have fifty dollars on hand in case a condom breaks.
They may or may not be able to raise 500 within eight or ten weeks.

Of course better access to contraception would improve the economy in the long run, and improve the quality of people's lives.

Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
 
If there are no Overpopulationists, how is the populaltion increasing? Maybe many of the actual Overpopulationists don't think of themselves as overpopulationists. Maybe one value of this thread is to get overpopulationists to realize their own identity.

..

So it is just your hyperbole, then. I just needed that to be clear. There is no credibility in your claim, therefore.

Maybe one day the planet will be over populated, but that day is not today nore could it happen for hundreds if not thousands of years.

As your links clearly support, the problem and solution regarding pollution are both technological.
 
So it is just your hyperbole, then. I just needed that to be clear. There is no credibility in your claim, therefore.

Maybe one day the planet will be over populated, but that day is not today nore could it happen for hundreds if not thousands of years.

As your links clearly support, the problem and solution regarding pollution are both technological.



The problem is that the human self-disipline to apply technology is limited. Pollution of the oceans is incremental, and when the net result of an increase in pollution occurs, at a level of population, then increasing population beyond the current level, is overpopulating.

The pollution of the soil is largely irreversible. it is not just technology that creates the criterea of over-population. It is the trends including all countries, of increases in pollution. There are something like 50 civil wars going on at any given time over the last 100 years. Countries at war cannot be respnsible about pollution, because winning a war requires pollution.

So it is not technology that creates or solves pollution. It is Human Greed Lust, and striving for Justice, that determines the level of pollution as increasing or decreasing.

It is Man's application of Technology that needs to be evaluated. Since today's irreversible pollution is increasing, there is therfore overpopulation.

There may be technology that could be applied for the current World popluation level, to prevent the increase in pollution of the Oceans.
but the currently available technology to prevent pollution is not easy to implement and utilize, to prevent increases in permanent ocean pollution. Overpopulation is a combination of the ease of use of technology, and the actuall application of that technology, through individual and collective processes.

I don't recall any red letter words in the Bible advocating War, but many wars are carried out in the name of Christianity. Many US Christians contribute money to fund Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands. There is not a sufficient commitment by major religions to Peace, to allow teh technolgy to be fuly utilized. But the technolgy to prevent pollution is not sufficiently easy to use today, anyway. So there is overpopulation Today. Anyone who fails to allow, or promote, voluntary family planning, is an overpopulationist.


"Water shortages, soil exhaustion, loss of forests, air and water pollution, and degradation of coastlines afflict many areas. As the world’s population grows, improving living standards without destroying the environment is a global challenge.

Most developed economies currently consume resources much faster than they can regenerate. Most developing countries with rapid population growth face the urgent need to improve living standards. As we humans exploit nature to meet present needs, are we destroying resources needed for the future?"



Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge (ActionBioscience)

..
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
If there are no Overpopulationists, how is the populaltion increasing? Maybe many of the actual Overpopulationists don't think of themselves as overpopulationists. Maybe one value of this thread is to get overpopulationists to realize their own identity.

..
lol, Africa is filled with all the over populationists! :cool:
 
In the Western world birth rates are down, and many speculate that this is due to increased competition. The more people there are, the harder it will be to make a livelihood, and this will be an incentive to not have children.

Though... I think there are more likely candidates for population reduction, such as pandemic or climate change.
 
Back
Top Bottom